(CEN) Canadian ‘no’ to communion without baptism
The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada has rejected calls to permit those not baptized to be allowed to receive the “sacrament of the holy Eucharist.”
At the close of their April 11-15 meeting in Niagara Falls, Ontario the bishops reaffirmed the church’s canons and traditional practice stating only those baptized would be permitted to receive. “We do not see this as changing for the foreseeable future,” the bishops said.
The bishops’ debate follows a March 7 “Guest Reflection” published in Canada’s Anglican Journal by Dr. Gary Nicolosi who argued for a relaxation in the church’s Eucharistic discipline as a way of attracting more people to church.
Read it all
Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal
Anglican Church of Canada
Posted May 5, 2011 at 10:00 am
To comment on this article: Go to Article View
The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/36350/
1. Cennydd13 wrote:
As it should be, of course.
May 5, 1:36 pm | [comment link]
3. David Keller wrote:
As has been pointed out before, there is a huge difference between open communion and communion of the un-baptised. That said, it is interesting that a group of Western Anglican bishops, so bent on approving SSB’s actually got this one (communion of the un-baptised) right.
May 5, 2:38 pm | [comment link]
4. Chris Molter wrote:
There’s just not a huge demand for reception of communion from the unbaptized.. and it generally isn’t a difficult thing to get baptized, so there isn’t much reason, even for the more extreme revisionist element, to overturn this tradition (at this point).
May 5, 2:46 pm | [comment link]
5. SHSilverthorne+ wrote:
Note, however, that parishes practising CWOB aren’t being told to cut it out. In this respect, the situation isn’t much different from SSBs. Even the very pro-gay New Westminster diocese in Canada permits SSBs in just a minority of parishes. Others are free to refuse, just as long as they don’t complain too much about those who do them.
Partly, this is due to a simple lack of demand for SSBs and CWOB, meaning it’s not a big issue in most places. But more importantly it’s the everybody-do-what-is-right-in-your-own-eyes approach to theology which has taken over much of Western Anglicanism. I’ll use this gender-neutral liturgy over here, you do the 1549 BCP over there, the Buddhist monk/Episcopalian priest can just tinker with the baptismal formula in that parish across the street. By saying no to changing the canons, but not doing anything about those who disregard them, what are the bishops saying about theology and church order? Pick and choose as the Zeitgeist leads you.
So, though I’m happy with this statement, I can’t see it as more than a pyrrhic victory.
May 5, 3:04 pm | [comment link]
6. Jon wrote:
Very thoughtful comment from Stephen just now.
May 5, 4:02 pm | [comment link]
7. nwlayman wrote:
Now will ECUSA proclaim something radical like no communion if in apostasy? Such as Muslipalians like Ann Redding? Still ECUSA in good standing. Still saying the Muslim creed. Deafening silence….
May 5, 4:39 pm | [comment link]
8. Jon wrote:
#7, the answer is no. If TEC bishops and priests can be apostate (e.g. Spong’s 12 Theses) and be the CELEBRANT at the altar, then they certainly aren’t about to restrict apostates from simply partaking.
I’ll admit to thinking that restriction of the rank and file is probably going to far. Not that I don’t think the creeds don’t matter for laymen, of course they do! It’s just that the cure (empowering local priests to decide who has the right degree of orthodoxy in order to come to the altar) is worse than the disease.
Better would be to have parishes begin a loving and firm adult ed campaign to teach parishioners the basic creedal faith, e.g. a class that goes through the Apostles or Nicene faith with a different line each week; and to couple that with sermons rooted in man’s deep entranched problem and in Christ’s mercy found on Calvary. Of course, that will only happen if bishops and priests believe in that, so don’t hold your breath…
May 5, 5:01 pm | [comment link]
9. Lutheran-MS wrote:
If you have a communion of the unbaptized, then it wouldn’t matter if you had a Budhist or whatever be at the altar to recite the words.
May 5, 8:25 pm | [comment link]
10. nwlayman wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that someone really *had* to be told this was a problem to begin with? Historically any layman could have given a quick answer to such a question. Nowadays there are places where clergy, even what passes for bishops, need to be reminded of the most basic truths. It’s easy to argue that there are places where the “laity” are so utterly uncatechized that they are ineligible to receive communion at all, even if baptized. The clerics who are so dull witted are with them. Here’s no possible talk of being “in communion” with people who shouldn’t be taking communion anywhere.
May 5, 11:19 pm | [comment link]
11. MichaelA wrote:
How many people actually want to take communion in ACoC churches anyway? I mean that in all seriousness - the church seems to be shrinking.
May 6, 12:21 am | [comment link]
© 2013 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.
For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com
<< Back to main page
<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)